>Sender: >To: >X-Original-Message-ID: <000d01befec4$cbd45d10$9acf69cf@pacbell.net> >From: "Peter McWilliams" >Subject: LA Times on court ruling >Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 08:21:19 -0700 >X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 >X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 > > >Los Angeles Times >Front Page >Tuesday, September 14, 1999 >Medical Need a Factor in Pot Cases, Court Says > Health: Federal appeals panel rules that marijuana centers may distribute >drug if patient faces serious harm. >By MAURA DOLAN and MARY CURTIUS, Times Staff Writers > > > SAN FRANCISCO--A federal appeals court created a potentially major opening >in federal drug laws Monday, ruling that medical marijuana centers may be >allowed to distribute cannabis if they can prove that the drug is needed to >protect patients against imminent medical harm. > In its decision, the three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of >Appeals said that a federal judge should have considered patients' medical >needs for marijuana when he ordered a cannabis club in Oakland last year to >stop distributing the drug. > The ruling "means that the federal law is not an absolute barrier to >distribution of marijuana," said Santa Clara University law professor Gerald >F. Uelmen, who helped represent the Oakland center. "It requires courts to >exercise discretion to look at the circumstances of individual patients and >weigh that against the public interest." > The court did not overturn U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer's >injunction against the club, but said he must consider the case again, >taking into account evidence that some patients need cannabis to treat >debilitating and life-threatening conditions. > The decision could lead to the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative and >others being allowed to distribute marijuana to some severely ill patients, >said Robert Raich, another attorney for the center. > "It may provide a method under federal law in which medical patients, >some medical patients, can be provided with the medical cannabis they need > . . . legally," the Oakland attorney said. > California voters in November 1996 approved Proposition 215, which >permitted seriously ill patients to obtain and use marijuana with their >doctors' recommendations without being prosecuted under state law. Some >doctors and patients say that the drug quells nausea, eases pain and >restores appetite. > The Clinton administration, however, sued six Northern California clubs >on the grounds that a federal ban on marijuana distribution prevails over >the state initiative. > Oakland's center stopped distributing marijuana, three clubs closed and >two others are still open and being monitored by federal authorities. > The court ruling follows the collapse of an effort by legislators in >Sacramento to make Proposition 215 more workable by setting up a statewide >registry of medical marijuana users. > Faced with opposition from law enforcement and a likely veto from Gov. >Gray Davis, state Sen. John Vasconcellos (D-Santa Clara) abandoned his >efforts, at least for now, to win legislative approval of a registry. The >plan had been recommended by a special task force of law enforcement >officials and medical marijuana advocates put together by Atty. Gen. Bill >Lockyer in January. > In the federal court case, federal attorneys had no immediate comment >Monday on whether they will appeal the decision of the 9th Circuit panel. >Without an appeal, the case would return to Judge Breyer in San Francisco, >who would have to reconsider his injunction against the Oakland center after >reviewing evidence that marijuana is a necessity for some patients. > > Protection From Harm > The 9th Circuit panel said the Oakland cooperative had presented >sufficient evidence that the injunction could be modified to reflect that >some patients with serious medical conditions need marijuana to treat their >illnesses or symptoms and will "suffer serious harm if they are denied >cannabis." > The evidence showed that for these patients, there was no legal >alternative to obtaining marijuana for the effective treatment of their >ailments, the court said. > It saidthe federal government failed to rebut the Oakland center's >evidence that "cannabis is the only effective treatment for a large group of >seriously ill individuals." > Judge Breyer must consider whether to "exempt from the injunction, >distribution to seriously ill individuals who need cannabis for medical >purposes," said the ruling by Judges Mary M. Schroeder, Stephen Reinhardt >and Barry G. Silverman. > Raich said the 9th Circuit decision may allow a narrower class of >patients than those singled out under Proposition 215 to buy and use >cannabis. Such patients would include those with AIDS and cancer, he said. > Mark Quinlivan, a U.S. Justice Department lawyer who is handling the >marijuana case, said he had not yet read the court's ruling and had not >determined whether to ask the 9th Circuit to reconsider its decision. > "We are going to have to read it in full before we have any comment on >it," Quinlivan said. > In Sacramento, Vasconcellos' representative to the state task force >said the lawmaker will continue to work toward a compromise between medical >marijuana advocates and law enforcement officials, and to reintroduce a >state registry bill next year. > "This was far too complicated and emotional an issue to try and jam a >so-called compromise down anybody's throat," said Rand Martin, the task >force member. In addition, he said, "we were getting signals from the >governor's office that he was, at best, skeptical about the proposal as a >whole." > Hillary McLean, a spokeswoman for the governor, said Davis' "concern >from the outset was that under federal law the use of marijuana is illegal. >The governor did not want to see the state of California acting in conflict >with federal law. He had strong concerns about the bill." > Lockyer had asked the task force to find ways to make Proposition 215 >more workable. As written, the measure only gives medical marijuana users a >defense to use in court if they are arrested. > In July, the task force recommended the creation of a state registry >that would provide every patient who chose to register with an >identification card. The system was meant to protect patients from arrest >and to simplify enforcement of the law for police officers. Vasconcellos >incorporated it into SB 848, which he tabled on the final day of the >legislative session. > "I'm certainly disappointed," Vasconcellos said in a statement >announcing that he was abandoning the bill this year. > After the task force had made its recommendations, several law >enforcement officials on the committee said they needed to seek approval >from their organizations for the proposals. To Lockyer and Vasconcellos' >dismay, some law enforcement agencies told them that they would oppose the >bill unless registration was mandatory. > Over the summer, Vasconcellos tried to broker a compromise, fashioning >language that would have required physicians who recommended that a patient >use medical marijuana to register that patient with the county health >department. The health department would then have forwarded the names to the >state health department, to be entered in the registry. Law enforcement >agencies embraced that idea, but it was rejected by medical marijuana >advocates, who argued that it violated the privacy of the physician-patient >relationship. > "All this was happening in the last two weeks of the session, with a >million other things going on," Martin of the task force said. > Medical marijuana advocates and law enforcement officials who >participated in the task force expressed disappointment Monday that no >compromise was found. > "This is a missed opportunity," said Pete Herley, chief of police in >Tiburon. Herley represented the California Police Chiefs Assn. on the task >force. His association would have supported the bill had the provision for >physician reporting been included, Herley said. > "We worked very hard for the last four months to develop a set of >guidelines which are sorely needed for patients, caregivers, physicians, >prosecutors and law enforcement," Herley said. "I thought everything was >settled until the very last minute." > "I'm really sad to hear it," said Karyn Sinunu, an assistant district >attorney for Santa Clara County who participated in the task force. Sinunu >said she preferred a mandatory registration system "because it is really >clean, it is as close as we can get to issuing a prescription for medical >marijuana," but she was willing to compromise and accept a voluntary system >"because I thought most people who were legitimate medical marijuana users >would take advantage of it." > Sinunu said she could understand the reluctance of some police agencies >to accept a voluntary system that would still have left a gray area of users >who were not registered. Still, she said, she thought the task force had >gone a long way toward establishing a rapport between medical marijuana >users and advocates and the police and district attorneys who were often at >odds with them. > > > > >================================================================ > >This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . >To unsubscribe, E-mail to: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------